Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it as a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds little behavior: it doesn't state whether events append to an ongoing negotiation, whether multiple events per offer are allowed, or that it does not alter the offer's terms. No contradiction with annotations, but limited added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action plus useful parenthetical examples. No padding or redundancy. It could earn a 5 if it also surfaced the sibling relationship, but it's not overwritten.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema, complete parameter schema, and annotations cover return values and safety profile. The main gap is the description's silence on how it relates to sibling offer tools and whether negotiation events are append-only. Adequate but thin for an agent choosing among several jobs.offer.* tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all 7 parameters documented (job_id, event_type enum, event_date format, notes, bonus_cents, equity_text, salary_cents). The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate given the schema already carries full semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Log a negotiation event on an offer') and gives concrete examples of what qualifies (counter-offer, update). It is clear enough to distinguish the action from offer create/update/delete at a high level, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like jobs.offer.delete_negotiation or jobs.offer.update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions when to prefer jobs.offer.update (for changing terms) over logging an event, or how it relates to create/delete_negotiation. The examples hint at negotiation-logging scenarios, but there are no exclusions or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.